> >Unix was *always* secure and Linux flowed out of Unix >as did BSD. Unix is very old. >
I don't know what you're background in the computer field is, and I don't mean to turn this into a resume review, but I've been writing operating systems and OS-level components since, oh, 1978. Your statement that "Unix was *always* secure" is *entirely* inaccurate. First, let me very clearly state my comments are restricted to commercial operating systems -- not special purpose military operating systems. Next, I can categorically state that *no* commercial operating system written in the 70's or 80's was "secure" as we mean the term today. When we wrote operating systems code back then, we didn't fully appreciate threats such as elevation of privilege, buffer overflows, or code-injection (to name a few and to keep things simple). We never even considered the possibility that some kid in his bedroom in would spend DAYS sending every undocumented system service code to the OS, or every possible I/O Function Code to every driver, just to see what it did to the system. This was largely because, back then, we could never anticipate some kid in his bedroom having access to a computer (Heck,*I* didn't even have a computer *terminal* in my office back then). Cuz, back then, the smallest computer was as big as your refrigerator and cost $200K (in 1978 dollars). I can tell you with absolute certainty that -- back in the day -- even code written for *highly* secure and sensitive defense department systems (NOTE: THAT ARE NO LONGER IN USE) was written in such a way that it would not pass even the most trivial level of threat analysis that is routinely performed on almost ANY commercial code today. In this way, Unix was *never* any more secure than any other OS written during that time. I was there. I've read the code and I was one of the people who WROTE the code (mostly device drivers) that ran as part of these operating systems. > >MS *chose* to not implement security due to profit >considerations and the impossbility of security because >of the wide-open-everything-executes-in-root structure. >It was a marketing and technological nightmare -- I >remember it well as a systems manager and consultant. > Here are you referring to a different level of "security". The questions of (a) what protections does the OS provide, (b) what privs are required to do things question, and (3) what are the default account settings on a system. In the context of what protections are available and privs are required, Unix-based systems have a rather coarse-grained security structure, whereas Windows-based systems stemming from the Windows NT tree (thus, starting with Windows 2000) have always had a rather fine-grained security structure. Consider that it's possible to grant or withhold individual privileges to individual Windows users. Further, consider the security capabilities of the NTFS file system where you can grant or withhold to a single, specific, user the privilege to access a specific file in a specific way. So, for a simple example, I could set the security on a file that says UserX can READ the file but not write it and when they do, I want an audit event written that says when they read it. Again, by the measurement of what security policies and protections are AVAILBLE, Unix-based systems including Linux are NOT more inherently secure than any Windows based on Windows NT (which was introduced in 1993 and is the basis for Windows 2000, XP, and Vista). In terms of DEFAULT security policies: YES. Windows DEFAULT security policies have been open. By DEFAULT most home users have been granted administrative access to their systems. This allows them to install drivers, update the O/S, and do similar things without having to logout of their user account and log back in as an administrator. In retrospect, this was probably a bad idea. Well, perhaps a VERY bad idea. The prevailing thinking at Microsoft for years was "we want just about everything to be do-able by a user without having to login and logout" and "we want defaults for things setup so everything just works." This approach made sense back in the days when it was first taken... When the world was a safer place and the internet (didn't exist or certainly) wasn't nearly so prevalent. The world has changed over the past few years and so has the policy at Microsoft. The policy is now "secure by default" even if it breaks stuff. In retrospect, did Unix-derived systems make a better choice? They made a more secure choice, certainly, not having users run with "root" privs by default and making folks authenticate to gain such privs. From our vantage point in 2007, this was clearly a better choice. > >Now I donate to many Linux developers because I >want to support them. It is not about Free to me, >it is about choice and integrity and freedom from >abusive OS contracts and limitations. > That's good! In fact that's GREAT! Linux is a good and useful alternative -- as is OS/X -- for those who want to use it. There have been strides made in the Linux space in recent years that Windows may *never* be able to catch. For example, the idea of "live CD" systems is pure genius -- Windows would probably implement the same thing, but I suspect they can't figure out how to ensure that they make money on such an idea (one CD, many copies, lots of systems... you see my point). It's wonderful that there's a whole community that helps move the Linux platform forward with limited restrictions imposed by the motives of profit. But it is simply not technically accurate to say "Unix was always a secure OS and Windows was not." I might not know much about amateur radio, but I *do* know operating systems, de Peter K1PGV Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, a Republican, a member of Al Qaeda, or an employee of Microsoft Corporation.
